When you are producing that many films one or two turn out to be great. Most turn out horrible, a few turn out okay. So it won't be like you are getting fewer good films, it's just that you'll have wade through a mountain of trash.

If I'm reading correctly, there are going to be 2-3 LucasFilm movies a year, not Star Wars movies. It'll be like most other production companies. I can't imagine they'll go beyond the three-year time period the other trilogies set. Maybe every other year now that they have the Disney muscle

Achieving the quality of writing of the first three is easy. It's building a machine to reverse-age all the manchild fanboize back to six years old so that the movies are a huge, mind-shattering cultural event that is going to be hard.

EvilEgg:When you are producing that many films one or two turn out to be great. Most turn out horrible, a few turn out okay. So it won't be like you are getting fewer good films, it's just that you'll have wade through a mountain of trash.

ArkAngel:If I'm reading correctly, there are going to be 2-3 LucasFilm movies a year, not Star Wars movies. It'll be like most other production companies. I can't imagine they'll go beyond the three-year time period the other trilogies set. Maybe every other year now that they have the Disney muscle

It would be pretty simple to make two-three movies a year all set in the Star Wars universe by having multiple production teams working on them simulutaniously. It becomes even easier if you make them in groups of three with the same characters and film them like Peter Jackson did the LotR films. Have three teams doing that in a cycle and it would be easy to pump out three films a year, once you get going.

Isn't Marvel already doing something similar with the Avengers-based movies?

EvilEgg:When you are producing that many films one or two turn out to be great. Most turn out horrible, a few turn out okay. So it won't be like you are getting fewer good films, it's just that you'll have wade through a mountain of trash.

Since Disney took over Marvel Studios, they've stuck to the 3 a year schedule and they've been usually very good with one amazing movie and one terrible one. The movies, with their Rotten Tomatoes rating:

I don't get where the hate is coming from. Disney's track record with Marvel Studios has been shockingly, amazingly good. They took hit-or-miss super hero genre and kicked some incredible ass with it.

Plus, here's the kicker -- they all were amazing financial successes, even Ghost Rider. Every single one of them had a box office gross which more than doubled the cost to make the movies. Those 7 movies cost a combined $1.1 billion to make but grossed a total of around $4.2 billion in box office receipts.

I have no evidence to back up the following opinion, but I guarantee that will happen. I can just see a boardroom of idiots patting each other on the back over how clever they are. Why waste time creating a new story when you can milk the shiat out of something.

/Darth Vader is just Anakins mind at the current state transferred into a cyborg, his actual body was cloned and repaired over these last years.

//now it's up to Anakin to stop his dark half with his son. Introducing Will Smith's kid as Luke Skywalker featuring Will Smith as Lando.

meanmutton:EvilEgg: When you are producing that many films one or two turn out to be great. Most turn out horrible, a few turn out okay. So it won't be like you are getting fewer good films, it's just that you'll have wade through a mountain of trash.

Since Disney took over Marvel Studios, they've stuck to the 3 a year schedule and they've been usually very good with one amazing movie and one terrible one. The movies, with their Rotten Tomatoes rating:

I don't get where the hate is coming from. Disney's track record with Marvel Studios has been shockingly, amazingly good. They took hit-or-miss super hero genre and kicked some incredible ass with it.

Plus, here's the kicker -- they all were amazing financial successes, even Ghost Rider. Every single one of them had a box office gross which more than doubled the cost to make the movies. Those 7 movies cost a combined $1.1 billion to make but grossed a total of around $4.2 billion in box office receipts.

ArkAngel:If I'm reading correctly, there are going to be 2-3 LucasFilm movies a year, not Star Wars movies. It'll be like most other production companies. I can't imagine they'll go beyond the three-year time period the other trilogies set. Maybe every other year now that they have the Disney muscle

Again, people, READ THIS GUY'S COMMENT. It's LUCASFILM projects, not Star Wars movies alone. This is headline fail at it's very worst. Leave it to Gawker to rile up people.

What's the big deal? Were any of the prequel episodes any good? I didn't really care for any of them. I don't know if that was because they were worse than the originals or because I wasn't watching them as a child anymore.

EvilEgg:When you are producing that many films one or two turn out to be great. Most turn out horrible, a few turn out okay. So it won't be like you are getting fewer good films, it's just that you'll have wade through a mountain of trash.

At least that's better than anything Lucas put out since 1989 (I'm giving him Last Crusade).

meanmutton:EvilEgg: When you are producing that many films one or two turn out to be great. Most turn out horrible, a few turn out okay. So it won't be like you are getting fewer good films, it's just that you'll have wade through a mountain of trash.

Since Disney took over Marvel Studios, they've stuck to the 3 a year schedule and they've been usually very good with one amazing movie and one terrible one. The movies, with their Rotten Tomatoes rating:

I don't get where the hate is coming from. Disney's track record with Marvel Studios has been shockingly, amazingly good. They took hit-or-miss super hero genre and kicked some incredible ass with it.

Plus, here's the kicker -- they all were amazing financial successes, even Ghost Rider. Every single one of them had a box office gross which more than doubled the cost to make the movies. Those 7 movies cost a combined $1.1 billion to make but grossed a total of around $4.2 billion in box office receipts.

Your observation would hold water IF the movies not in bold above were produced by Marvel Studios and distributed by Disney. Unfortunately, as we keep pointing out, the film rights for Spider-Man, the X-Men, and Ghost Rider are not owned by Marvel Studios/Disney.

So only the titles in bold, above, are Disney releases. Each one of those has been "Fresh" on RT and generally liked by the fans.

You can't factor in the success/failure of films by Sony Pictures, 20th Century Fox, or Columbia/Hyde Park when talking about Disney's success rate with Marvel properties. Disney had nothing to do with the success or failure of any X-Men, Spider-Man, or Ghost Rider movies, just as they'll have nothing to do with the success or failure of Sony's upcoming Fantastic Four reboot.

Do one movie a month. Do Barbie style CGI Star Wars princess straight to DVD movies. Do Mickey in Star Wars universe specials... I don't give a rat's ass anymore.

You know that guy who waited for a new Star Wars movie every year since 1983. That was me. I never took a break. Every Star Wars TV show, toon, computer game, RPG, comic, book... 10 years ago I would be the guy on the internet who'd write a 1000 essay why the Disney buyout would suck. But then I remember going ooh ahh at the sucky cutscenes in the first X-Wing sim.

So you know what?

EvilEgg:When you are producing that many films one or two turn out to be great. Most turn out horrible, a few turn out okay. So it won't be like you are getting fewer good films, it's just that you'll have wade through a mountain of trash.

THIS

Having that amount of Star Wars material? I'm happy to ignore the 80% sucky, cash-grabbing material if we have 20% serviceable material storywise once a year.

Do one movie a month. Do Barbie style CGI Star Wars princess straight to DVD movies. Do Mickey in Star Wars universe specials... I don't give a rat's ass anymore.

You know that guy who waited for a new Star Wars movie every year since 1983. That was me. I never took a break. Every Star Wars TV show, toon, computer game, RPG, comic, book... 10 years ago I would be the guy on the internet who'd write a 1000 essay why the Disney buyout would suck. But then I remember going ooh ahh at the sucky cutscenes in the first X-Wing sim.

So you know what?

EvilEgg: When you are producing that many films one or two turn out to be great. Most turn out horrible, a few turn out okay. So it won't be like you are getting fewer good films, it's just that you'll have wade through a mountain of trash.

THIS

Having that amount of Star Wars material? I'm happy to ignore the 80% sucky, cash-grabbing material if we have 20% serviceable material storywise once a year.

Now, almost ANY of these properties would be good material for an animated or live-action film. Add Pixar to the mix, and you have the potential for a really kick-ass Grim Fandango movie, or an awesome Day of the Tentacle flick. Consider the fact that Disney already owns the Muppets, and you have the possibility of a new Labyrinth film. Consider the fact that Warwick Davis likes being paid to act and is probably sick of doing Leprechaun sequels, and you have the chance to see a new Willow movie.

The point is that Disney doesn't necessarily have to stick to Star Wars movies 2 or 3 times a year. They have a lot of IP to draw from with this deal, I'm sure, and they have some creative folks who can do great things with these properties.

SuperT:meanmutton: EvilEgg: When you are producing that many films one or two turn out to be great. Most turn out horrible, a few turn out okay. So it won't be like you are getting fewer good films, it's just that you'll have wade through a mountain of trash.

Since Disney took over Marvel Studios, they've stuck to the 3 a year schedule and they've been usually very good with one amazing movie and one terrible one. The movies, with their Rotten Tomatoes rating:

I don't get where the hate is coming from. Disney's track record with Marvel Studios has been shockingly, amazingly good. They took hit-or-miss super hero genre and kicked some incredible ass with it.

Plus, here's the kicker -- they all were amazing financial successes, even Ghost Rider. Every single one of them had a box office gross which more than doubled the cost to make the movies. Those 7 movies cost a combined $1.1 billion to make but grossed a total of around $4.2 billion in box office receipts.

ZeroCorpse:meanmutton: EvilEgg: When you are producing that many films one or two turn out to be great. Most turn out horrible, a few turn out okay. So it won't be like you are getting fewer good films, it's just that you'll have wade through a mountain of trash.

Since Disney took over Marvel Studios, they've stuck to the 3 a year schedule and they've been usually very good with one amazing movie and one terrible one. The movies, with their Rotten Tomatoes rating:

I don't get where the hate is coming from. Disney's track record with Marvel Studios has been shockingly, amazingly good. They took hit-or-miss super hero genre and kicked some incredible ass with it.

Plus, here's the kicker -- they all were amazing financial successes, even Ghost Rider. Every single one of them had a box office gross which more than doubled the cost to make the movies. Those 7 movies cost a combined $1.1 billion to make but grossed a total of around $4.2 billion in box office receipts.

Your observation would hold water IF the movies not in bold above were produced by Marvel Studios and distributed by Disney. Unfortunately, as we keep pointing out, the film rights for Spider-Man, the X-Men, and Ghost Rider are not owned by Marvel Studios/Disney.

So only the titles in bold, above, are Disney releases. Each one of those has been "Fresh" on RT and generally liked by the fans.

You can't factor in the success/failure of films by Sony Pictures, 20th Century Fox, or Columbia/Hyde Park when talking about Disney's success rate with Marvel properties. Disney had nothing to do with the success or failure of any X-Men, Spider-Man, or Ghost Rider movies, just as they'll have nothing to do with the success or failure of Sony's upcoming Fantastic Four reboot.

My list came from wikipedia's list of movies produced or co-produced by Marvel Studios since the take-over.

madgonad:thecpt: madgonad: If this means a live action KotOR, I'm okay with this.

/Kate Beckinsale was born to play Bastila Shan

And bill Pullman as Carth. Might be too old now though

Carth isn't supposed to be that young. Remember, his son was a young adult at the Sith Academy.

Yeah I forgot about that plot point. He might be able to pull it off with some good makeup and physique making wardrobe. Still have to cast jolee, the voice for hk, Malik, and gang but those two would be a good start.

/forget how much I loved that game at times. Still able to remember the names

SockMonkeyHolocaust:Achieving the quality of writing of the first three is easy. It's building a machine to reverse-age all the manchild fanboize back to six years old so that the movies are a huge, mind-shattering cultural event that is going to be hard.

Or... keep Lucas as far away from the projects as is possible. I mean either way works but mine doesn't not require time machines, Doc Brown or risk a nasty case of Terminators.

I'm still wondering why the pod racers sounded like they had angry wasps in can's for engines rather than sounding more... well... like the jet engines they appeared to be.